The Apex Court on 18.9.2018, in The State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra allowed the appeals made by the State of Orissa as well as the informant against the decision of the High Court of Orissa.

Facts: The deceased/victim while on his way to office in his vehicle met with a car explosion leading to his death. As per the FIR, it was a case of murder involving a rivalry in business between the victim and the respondent. It was alleged that prior to the murder, the respondent had deliberately given threat to life to the deceased and that after the incident had fled to another country in order to escape from arrest. During the investigation procedure, many weapons pertaining to the murder were found and also a note was found that was handed over to the Inspector by the deceased prior to the murder which was to be considered as a dying declaration in the concerned case which had called for a further investigation.

Contention on behalf of the state and complainant: It was contended that the respondent was the mastermind behind the conspiracy of murdering the victim/deceased and that everything that took place was according to his plan. It was brought to the account of the Court that the respondent being a powerful person in terms of money and muscle power may try to tamper with the evidence as well as intimidate the witness, also that absconding to another country right after the murder was a proof of a tendency from his part to take the law into his own hands, that could result in delay of justice and hence denial in the justice which is to be served.

Contention on behalf of accused: It was contended that despite the respondent being released on bail there had been no allegations made from the part of police in connection to the tampering with the evidence or intimidating the witnesses from the part of respondent nor had there been any allegation pertaining to the absconding, hence in the absence of any such relevant proof, the freedom of the respondent should not be restrained.

Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the decision concluded by the High Court was not appropriate as the High Court failed in taking into account other relevant factors which were crucial such as the influence of the respondent upon the witness, or its affect upon the investigation, thereby setting aside the order of the High Court on granting bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court thus, allowed the appeals and also passed order of taking the respondent into custody.

[1] https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/20030/20030_2017_Judgement_18-Sep-2018.pdf